MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Header}}
{{/Header}}


===List of Talk Page Proposals===
==Writing guidelines==
*Move [[Blue Lava Bubble]] to {{fakelink|Ice Bubble}} ([[Talk:Blue Lava Bubble#Move to Ice Bubble|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' August 16, 2013, 23:59 GMT
===Change how "infinitely respawning" enemies are counted in level enemy tables===<-Requesting cancelling
*Delete [[:Category: RPG Characters]] ([[Category talk: RPG Characters#Delete Category: RPG Characters|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' August 19, 2013, 23:59 GMT
Currently, the wiki lists enemy counts for each level in tables located in that level's article. This is all well and good, but the problem arises when infinitely respawning ones (like piped ones) are included. As seen [[World 6-B (New Super Mario Bros.)|here]], this is awkwardly written as
*Delete [[Template:Sprite gallery]] ([[Template talk:Sprite gallery#Delete this Template|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' August 22, 2013, 23:59 GMT
*"[number] (not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]),"
*Move [[Knight Greenie]] to {{fakelink|Possessed Armor}} and add information ([[Talk:Knight Greenie#Move to "Possessed Armor" and list more kinds|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' August 24, 2013, 23:59 GMT
and why shouldn't it include them? That method of writing is ungainly, misleading, and bloats the table's width unnecessarily. Therefore, I propose the alternate writing of
*Create a separate page for {{fakelink|Pendulum}} ([[Talk:Ball 'n' Chain#NSMBU Ball 'n' Chains, old or new|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' August 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT
*"[number] + (∞ x [number]),"
*Move [[Venus Fire Trap]] to {{fakelink|Fire Piranha Plant}} ([[Talk:Venus Fire Trap#Move to Fire Piranha Plant|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' August 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT
with the "x [number]" and parentheses being removed if there is only one case. So in the linked example, it would be "6 + ∞," which says the same thing without contradicting itself with a lengthy diatribe.
*Delete [[Template:WarioWareChar]] ([[Template_talk:WarioWareChar#Delete_this_template|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' August 31, 2013, 23:59 GMT
<br>(Also I had to restrain myself from using * rather than x because that's how I'm used to writing multiplication in equations. Thanks, higher-level math classes defaulting to "X" as a variable! But the asterisk could be used too, anyway.)


==Writing Guidelines==
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
''None at the moment.''
'''Deadline''': September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
==New features==
===Make {{fakelink|game-model}} template===
Since there is really many 3D games.. and there is too much models on this wiki that is classed as a sprite. So I porpose we create a template for them. I'm not so good with copyrights, but here is an almost a copy from {{tem|game-sprite}}
{|align=center style="width:80%;background:#fff9f9;border:1px solid #C55;padding:5px;font-size:12px"
|[[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted game screenshot]]
|''This is a [[Wikipedia:3D modeling|model]] originally from a '''[[Wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]] computer or video game''', and the '''copyright''' for it is most likely held by the company that developed the game. It is believed that the use of a '''limited number''' of '''web-resolution''' models for '''identification and critical commentary on the computer or video game in question''' or '''the copyrighted character(s) depicted on the screenshot in question''' qualifies as '''[[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]]''' under [[Wikipedia:United States copyright law|United States copyright law]], as such display '''does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material''', is '''not being used to turn a profit in this context''', and presents ideas that '''cannot be exhibited otherwise'''. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Copyrights|Copyrights]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale|fair use rationale]].
|}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Megadardery}} '''(banned)'''<br>
'''Deadline''': August 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 
====Create The License and the category====
#{{User|Tails777}} They aren't sprites so a separate template for models seems like a good idea to me. Per proposal.
#{{User|Yoshi876}} If they're different, have different templates. Per proposal.
#{{User|Madikoopa}} Per all.
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Models aren't used very often, but it never hurts to have this template. I also disagree with YoshiKong. Creating this template will NOT be redundant and a waste of effort because these licensing templates also create a category for these images to go in. Lumping sprites and models in one category is messy, so this template can solve that problem too.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} I strongly agree with this. BTW, there is a clear-cut difference between pre-rendered sprites and 3d models.
#{{user|Mario7}} Per LGM
 
====Rename the category to Game Sprites and Models====
 
====Do not create the License nor the category====
#{{User|YoshiKong}} &ndash; I have regarded this idea [http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=23956.msg1047473#msg1047473 with distaste] in the past, where it was first brought up as an idea on a wiki collaboration forum thread. The idea of acknowledging the two kinds within image galleries, I'm completely fine with, mainly because it's a notion which is only needing to be changed once per gallery page, to comply with [[MarioWiki:Galleries|our policy]]. However, the fact that y'all are hoping to introduce a copyright license which is ''already'' legally covered by {{tem|game-sprite}}, the only difference is a slight nameswap makes this template seem completely redundant, and a waste of effort to incorporate. And I don't agree that every user should be expected to correctly license every sprite/model which gets uploaded, and telling them off/continually correcting them would get excessively pedantic. It would be '''a lot''' more logical and save us all this unneeded hassle if we just modified our current sprite template to mention these fancy fashion models. And legally, we'd still be safe (which remember, is the whole point of driving licenses), not exactly keeping up with the latest rad words.
#{{User|GBAToad}} Per YoshiKong, he has a valid point. The obvious differences between sprites and models are regardless if they can both be legally classified under the same license. Creating another license to acknowledge these differences is highly superfluous and modifying the existing licence to accompany both sprites and models is the more logical thing to do.
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per YoshiKong, the purpose of licenses is simply to be legally correct.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all.
#{{User|Iggy Koopa Jr}}Per all
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - I agree with YoshiKong and Tucayo.
 
====Comments====
What changes would you suggest to {{tem|game-sprite}} - {{User|Megadardery}}
:@YoshiKong: It's not the legal part I'm concerned about. Creating game-model also creates and automatically places a category that neatly places all game models into one page. We could manually add a game model category, but we still have this licensing thing that will lump models with sprites. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
::Or we could call the category "Sprites and Models" but that still requires a ton of work. {{User|Baby Luigi}}
:::Yeah, Lot of unneeded work plus it would be still mess. A separate category plus a separate license is the best way to go (in my opinion) - {{User|Megadardery}}
 
===Make "List of Quotes by Character" Pages===
I think we should make "List of Quotes by Character" pages (with "Character" being replaced by the name of a specific character). All the information will go onto a Writing Guideline eventually, but in the mantime, I'll just provide the main ideas here for reference...
 
These pages would only be for recurring characters, as oneshot characters already have complete quote lists on their parent games' pages. Discretion should also be used when determining what recurring characters should get quotes pages. If a character is major in one game, but only has a few lines in another game or two, there is no point giving them a quote page either: just give them a Quotes section with {{tem|main}} to the major appearance, as well as some choice quotes from that and all the quotes from the minor appearance. Similarly, if a character appears in many games, but they only have a couple lines in each one, just compile them into a small list that fits in a single Quotes section (like how no separate list pages are needed when there's only one or two glitches or beta elements). Character with quotes list pages should also get Quotes sections linking to the lists with {{tem|Main}}, with a small sample of notable or characteristic (oft-repeated) quotes (in accordance with [[MarioWiki:Empty Section Policy]]).
 
Each quote page will have a standardized header: "<code><nowiki>This is a list of quotes by [[character]].</nowiki></code>" (this will be added to [[MarioWiki:Subpages Policy]]). The first section will be "General", and list quotes that appear in more than one appearance; if they only occur a couple times, the appearances can be listed (put these quotes at the bottom), but otherwise, just leave them. Try to put the most stereotypical quotes at the top (i.e. "Mama Mia" for Mario, "Help me, Mario!" for Peach, etc.), and remember that generic quotes ''are allowed here'' - just not things like screams ("ahhh"), nonsense and other stuff that sheds absolutely no light on the character ("hi", "okay", etc.); when in doubt, or when there's disagreement, take it to the talk page. After that section, go by genre/media type: Platformers first, since they usually have less quotes, and after that comes Sports, then Spinoffs (including all the random things), then the RPGs (since these are likely to be the big, hefty sections), then the "Non-game appearances", and finally, a Misc. section for commercials ("Mario, Mario, Mario ja nai!" - Peach, ''NSLU''), websites, and other things like that.. Specific series may be given headers, and specific games too, if they produce a large amount of quotes (typically, games sections will be reserved for the RPGs; spinoffs and sports will at least get series headers often, I suspect); otherwise, just put what game each quote is from following the quote All sections should follow the "unsorted" quotes; use chronological order for everything at every level as much as possible. For the non-game appearances, sections can be given for the different shows, movies, publications, etc., or just list them "unsorted" like the games/series with few quotes.
 
Pretty sure that's everything. But again, the real proposal part's the first paragraph, so if that's all you read, you got the idea.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Walkazo}} (prompted by {{User|Megadardery}} and {{User|Yoshi876}})<br>
'''Deadline''': August 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per me. I've had this idea for ''years'' and have been mulling it over in earnest since [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_34#Delete_quote_sections.2Farticles_that_don.27t_have_any_meaningful_quotes|this proposal happened]]...
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|GBAToad}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Altendo}} - This doesn't sound like a bad idea, although I do think there should be an asterisk like "*" instead which leads to a note saying "not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]", as enemies can spawn in different ways, and showing how they spawn could still be useful. If we just show "∞ x [number]", it wouldn't show how Goombas are spawned in (the linked page doesn't specify how they are spawned in otherwise). But I do like the idea of shortening the "count" section of tables.
#{{User|Zero777}} Seems like a pretty solid proposal. I'll support it! It's a good idea to have a separate page for that because putting a large list on the parent article clutters the place up and takes up too much space which can be bad for people with low bandwidth.
<s>#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Altendo. This formatting is much better, but I also think some note of where the infinite enemy spawner(s) originate from should be preserved.</s><br>
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Huh, I always thought why didn't we have a separate page of quotes for characters like Mario. That should've been a standard years ago.
<s>#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per all.</s>
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} It's a pain in the ass to look for specific quotes by a certain character by looking in the games. This proposal solves this problem.
#{{User|Tails777}} I was thinking about this myself and I feel it would be better to find quotes if one wanted to find one for a specific character. Per all.
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per Walkazo.<br><s>{{User|Megadardery}} - Exactly Per Walkazo, I thought about this idea when I saw all those construction templates on all quotes pages for many and many years. But she seems that she organized this idea more than me.</s><br>
#{{User|Yoshi876}} 100% agree with this, makes it easier to find certain quotes if you don't remember the game, but remember the character.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Gonzales Kart Inc.}} Per Yoshi876.
#{{User|Driftmaster130}}&ndash; Per all, I'm sure a lot of people have had this idea in the past.
#{{User|Iggy Koopa Jr}}Perfextly understandable, and advantegeous.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't see the benefit of changing this. The current wording is straightforward and succinct, I'd expect the reader to understand "6 (not including the infinite Goombas spawning from one Warp Pipe)" easily. Changing it to "6 + ∞" just makes it less clear for no reason, I'd definitely be confused if I saw that and didn't know this specific context. The fact that the other support votes have also brought up how doing this risks losing the specific information completely (and suggested a more long-winded solution that seems to contradict the proposal) compels me to oppose this more.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Hewer.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
#{{User|Axii}} Per Hewer
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} we don't need to throw a mathematical equation at people
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} I realized that this only makes sense if you have it explained to you like in the proposal description, which defeats the purpose.
#{{User|Arend}} I feel that "[number] (+ [number] infinite spawn points)" would be less awkward to write than what we currently do ''and'' more understandable fir most people than what is proposed here
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Excuse me, but what about quotes like [[List_of_quotes_in_Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl#Announcer|those]]? - {{User|Megadardery}}
{{@|Hewer}} - "succinct" would generally imply "short, sweet, and to-the-point," of which the current method is the exact opposite. I'm fine with including an asterisk-note next to the infinity, but the current one is much too bloated, outright admits to stating false information, and since the tables are center-aligned with that horizontal-bloat, it makes it look incredibly awkward. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:41, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:They should stay in the article. As for Mario characters, you should add the quotes into their page. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
:I guess we just have totally opposing opinions on this one, because I don't personally find ten words of explanation to be "much too bloated", would rather "state false information" (not really what's happening because it's immediately clarified and the only way not to state any "false" info would be to just put "∞" which helps no one) than obscure the meaning of what we're trying to say, and I don't at all think the somewhat wider tables look "incredibly awkward". This is a case where I feel giving more explanation than "6 + ∞" is necessary for the sake of conveying clear information, so I'd rather prioritise that over having a thin table (which I still don't really see why that's so desirable). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:19, September 18, 2024 (EDT)
::Cool, should we make a  Collab on the forum? - {{User|Megadardery}}


==Removals==
If this proposal passes, I think that a dedicated template should be made; something like <code><nowiki>{{infinite respawn|5|3}}</nowiki></code> that would produce "{{hover|5 + (∞ × 3)|5 (not including the 3 infinite spawning points)}}". Or at the very least, use an actual "×" symbol rather than "x". {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 12:08, September 19, 2024 (EDT)
===Disallow Usage of "Per All"===
:I dislike the idea of hiding details in easily missable hover text and don't really see the benefit of using it. It just makes it more convoluted. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:12, September 20, 2024 (EDT)
My proposal is simple. It is the disallow of "Per All" sentence in proposal. Instead The voter will need a few seconds to specify the the users.


'''Example:'''
I'll refrain from voting because I have a visceral reaction to anything that resembles a math formula, and I want as little as possible for personal preference to seep into my vote. That's not to say I don't understand what's being proposed, in fact it makes perfect sense if you're aiming strictly for concision, but you'd need to take into account how accessibly that information is communicated--you'd need to establish that "infinity symbol" stands for infinite enemy spawning point, which is not immediately clear. At that point, you'd go for a relatively lengthy explanation nonetheless. Though, I agree that the phrasing in that page you linked doesn't sound inclusive. I think something like "5 individual, 3 infinite spawning points" works better if we're going down this path.<br>If the proposal passes, I'd like to see it implemented in the manner Jdtendo suggests above.<br>EDIT: I'm aware there's [[Mario Kart Tour race points system#Bonus-points boost|already plenty of math on this wiki that has potential to confound people]], but in that case, not only is its succinctness a better way to explain how the game's scoring system works (as opposed to paragraphs-long descriptions), but it's taken straight out of the game as well. I'd say, use math formulas only when you're sure prose would be of less service to its intended audience: people looking up how many enemies are in a level aren't necessarily interested in complex gameplay dynamics. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:12, September 19, 2024 (EDT), edited 14:55, September 19, 2024 (EDT)


1. {{User|User1}} Users should atleast have sometime reading the proposal before voting.
I'd personally prefer if this was notated with ω instead of ∞, something like "{{hover|3ω+5|3 infinite spawn points and 5 others}}", but that would probably be too confusing to anyone not already familiar with transfinite ordinal notation. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 10:01, September 21, 2024 (EDT)
2. {{User|User2}} Per User1
:This should be written "ω⋅3+5" because 3⋅ω = ω; {{wp|Ordinal arithmetic#Multiplication|multiplication on transfinite ordinal numbers}} is not commutative. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 12:40, September 21, 2024 (EDT)
3. {{User|User3}} Some Users may just want to vote, so they be called a participant in proposals.


Instead of:
Maybe just have a table for finite enemies and a table for infinite enemies? There's horizontal space for both. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 11:33, September 21, 2024 (EDT)
4. {{User|User4}} Per All
:That just needlessly splits information, which I again don't see the benefit of (and I still don't really see how there's a problem here that needs fixing anyway). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 21:26, September 21, 2024 (EDT)
He would say:
4. {{User|User4}} Per User1 and User3
He doesn't need to say Per User2, because User2 opinion is the same as User1


'''Proposer''': {{User|Megadardery}} '''(banned)'''<br>
==New features==
'''Deadline''': August 20, 2013, 23:59 GMT
''None at the moment.''


====Support====
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


====Oppose====
==Changes==
#{{User|Yoshi876}} I don't see a good reason for it to be gotten rid of, and it'd be incredibly annoying if lots of users contribute to a proposal each with their own reasons for (dis)agreeing with something and you having to go, Per: User 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. if you agree with all of them.
=== Add film and television ratings to [[Template:Ratings]] ===
#{{User|ThePremiumYoshi}} &mdash; Per all... uh, I mean, this is completely unnecessary. Per the user above.
Regarding ratings on the games we cover on this wiki, it's usually done very well and even shows off obscure rating companies hardly anyone talks about. It's educational and shows how the world rates a Super Mario game. However, when it comes to television shows and movies, they do not get the same treatment. Television shows ''don't even have ratings in their infobox.'' And while the movies do, they not only list ''just'' the MPAA, which for people who live in the United Kingdom or other countries, is '''not''' representative of the majority of the world, it's ''just'' the text, "PG". Sure, most people know it means "Parental Guidance," but imagine if we included more ratings. It's not super easy to find ratings for films and television shows in general, other than IMDB and there are no sources for proof of these ratings. When it comes to the Canadian Home Video Rating System, I can hardly find what rating was applied to that particular movie/TV show and I remember not being lucky for searching any other ratings for other movies (personal experience, but I remember searching on one of these websites and the site was rather buggy or didn't have the film/show in question).
#{{User|Marshal Dan Troop}} per all.
#{{User|Tails777}} If the per all thing is removed, then people who's reason for agreeing/disagreeing with something is already mentioned, those people either can't vote or need to come up with a whole new reason. Agreeing with someone else just makes it easier.
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} This seems to be a needless hassle to be specific on who you're perring when you per all.
#{{User|Randombob-omb4761}} This is Ridiculous.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. Having to list individuals is tedious and unnecessary, especially if lots of users make points you agree with. "Per all" isn't a cop-out, it's a perfectly valid vote.
#{{User|Driftmaster130}}&ndash; The current system is fine, per all.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all.
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per all.
#{{User|Iggy Koopa Jr}} This is preposterous. And additionally, how are you going to deal with users who will persist using "Per all"? Send a Warning? Possibly ban them?
#{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} Per all. (ha ha)
#{{User|Mario7}} Per Yoshi876, Iggy Koopa Jr...ahhh! Per all!


====Comments====
The better solution is to '''add film and television ratings to the [[Template:Ratings|rating template]] so we can provide a wide variety of ratings for movies and television shows.''' In this case, users from around the world can view how movies are rated in almost every country. As for what ratings we add, it's a bit tricky. Because there is a lot, I would need some help here. Regardless, I got some EFIGS ratings in question. If you have more ratings, please let me know and I'll add it to the proposal These are split up into film and television.
Most votes are 'Pers' after all. - {{User|Megadardery}}
'''@Tail777''' They can say Per ''someone''  - {{User|Megadardery}}
:True, but agreeing with many people isn't a bad thing. {{User|Tails777}}
::<s>Alright, I got it now. I'll withdraw the proposal by tomorrow.</s> Keeping it wouldn't hurt - {{User|Megadardery}}


==Changes==
<div id=fh4 class=mw-headline> Film </div>
*[[Wikipedia:Motion Picture Association film rating system|Motion Picture Association film rating system (MPAA)]]
*[[Wikipedia:British Board of Film Classification|British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)]]
*[[Wikipedia:Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft|Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft (FSK)]]
*[[Wikipedia:Canadian Home Video Rating System|Canadian Home Video Rating System]] (It can also apply to DVDs of TV shows as well.)


===Semi-Protect templates===
<div id=fh4 class=mw-headline> Television </div>
*[[Wikipedia:TV Parental Guidelines|TV Parental Guidelines]]


Recently I have noticed that anons have done stupid things in the templates. Take [[http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Template%3ABabies&diff=1527422&oldid=1527420|this, for example]]. We don't want anons putting fake things in the templates. Or [[http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Template%3AWii&diff=1529783&oldid=1529781|what about that?]] We don't want them putting DS games in the Wii template either. It may not happen a lot, but it still happens and we don't want it.
My list so far is not comprehensive, but my idea is to add these ratings (and potentially others) to the template and make the infoboxes look much prettier and more visually educational. I have nothing else to say, so that's about it.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Gonzales Kart Inc.}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|TheUndescribableGhost}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 21, 2013, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Gonzales Kart Inc.}} Per my proposal. I still feel stupid I didn't do this earlier...
#{{User|TheUndescribableGhost}} Rated PR for per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Never noticed ratings were missing from TV and movie coverage until now. It feels obvious ratings should be included like they are with games. Per proposal.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} This is something I never noticed, but I completely agree. I'm happy that there are observant people in this world! Per proposal.
#{{User|Arend}} Per all (fun fact: the Dutch rating system for movies and television, Kijkwijzer, is being utilized by {{wp|Netherlands Institute for the Classification of Audiovisual Media|NICAM}}, which happens to ''also'' rate games in Europe using PEGI. In fact, PEGI's ratings appear to be based on those of Kijkwijzer)
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Megadardery in the comments. A couple bad edits is no reason for blanket protection of the templates: we're more likely to prevent good edits than bad edits from happening.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Megadardery's comment.
#{{User|Iggy Koopa Jr}} A vandal is not so enormous a problem.


====Comments====
====Comments====
I got this idea in my mind before, but it is unbelievable to protect '''all the templates'''. If we ''have'' to protect some, we would protect high usage/complicated templates, mostly like Formatting Templates, Media Templates and Internal Link Templates. However, Navigation Templates, and Infobox Templates '''should never be protected''', because maybe anonymous user finds a problem and tries to fix it. Beside all that, it is still easy to revert any vandal edit, other than complicated templates, because a vandal may make an edit, and another user fix a code somewhere else in the template. So it become ''hard'' -but not impossible- to revert it. This is nothing like the last proposal of semi-protecting the Glitches pages, because a vandal may add unreal glitch, which doesn't become ''hard'' but almost impossible because we wouldn't know if it is real or not, that is the reason our admins protected them in the first place. - {{User|Megadardery}}
Wait, couldn't this just be a talk page proposal on the template itself? It would affect many pages, yes, but this is specifically about editing a template… I'm honestly not so sure. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 15:52, September 24, 2024 (EDT)
:I agree with Megadardery. The glitch lists were protected because they are often a target for vandalism and false info. It's true that anyone can add false information to templates as well, but it only happens once in a while (much less frequently than glitch pages), and are easy enough to revert. &ndash;{{User|driftmaster130}}
 
==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 20:26, September 24, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, September 25th, 01:56 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

  1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
  2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  9. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% support to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% support to win. If the required support threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
  12. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for writing guidelines and talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  15. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "September 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
  2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
  5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

  • Consider the "Blurp" and "Deep Cheep" in the Super Mario Maker games an alternate design of Cheep Cheep with the former twos' designs as a cameo rather than a full appearance of the former two, in line with the game's own classification (discuss) Deadline: September 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Add English to {{foreign names}} and retitle to {{international names}} (discuss) Deadline: September 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Allow usage of {{Release}} as a generic "flag list" template (discuss) Deadline: September 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Prune "sports" games from Black Shy Guy in line with White Shy Guy and Red Boo (discuss) Deadline: September 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge Preying Mantas with Jellyfish (discuss) Deadline: September 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Create article(s) for the SM64DS character rooms (discuss) Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Create an article for the Peach doll from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (discuss) Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Remove the remaining non-Super Mario "stage gimmicks and hazards" from Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Remove non-Super Mario "stage cameos" from Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Rename {{Manga infobox}} to {{Publication infobox}} (discuss) Deadline: October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge Play Nintendo secret message puzzles (discuss) Deadline: October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge categories for Donkey Kong Country remakes with their base game's categories (discuss) Deadline: October 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Refer to this enemy as "Bull's-Eye Banzai" for coverage in New Super Mario Bros. Wii (discuss) Deadline: October 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Rename Perfect Edition of the Great Mario Character Encyclopedia to Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten (discuss) Deadline: October 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder
Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024)
Do not use t-posing models as infobox images, Nightwicked Bowser (ended September 1, 2024)
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Tag sections regarding the unofficially named planets/area in Super Mario Galaxy games with "Conjecture" and "Dev data" templates, GuntherBayBeee (ended September 10, 2024)
Rename the remaining baseball teams to their current titles, GuntherBayBeee (ended September 19, 2024)
Create MarioWiki:WikiLove and WikiLove templates, Super Mario RPG (ended September 20, 2024)
Only add in the current voice actor in the "latest portrayal" section in infoboxes, Altendo (ended September 21, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Split Bowser's Flame from Fire Breath, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Split truck article into cargo truck and pickup truck articles, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 21, 2024)
Merge Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64) with Crocodile Isle, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 21, 2024)

Writing guidelines

===Change how "infinitely respawning" enemies are counted in level enemy tables===<-Requesting cancelling Currently, the wiki lists enemy counts for each level in tables located in that level's article. This is all well and good, but the problem arises when infinitely respawning ones (like piped ones) are included. As seen here, this is awkwardly written as

  • "[number] (not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]),"

and why shouldn't it include them? That method of writing is ungainly, misleading, and bloats the table's width unnecessarily. Therefore, I propose the alternate writing of

  • "[number] + (∞ x [number]),"

with the "x [number]" and parentheses being removed if there is only one case. So in the linked example, it would be "6 + ∞," which says the same thing without contradicting itself with a lengthy diatribe.
(Also I had to restrain myself from using * rather than x because that's how I'm used to writing multiplication in equations. Thanks, higher-level math classes defaulting to "X" as a variable! But the asterisk could be used too, anyway.)

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
  2. Altendo (talk) - This doesn't sound like a bad idea, although I do think there should be an asterisk like "*" instead which leads to a note saying "not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]", as enemies can spawn in different ways, and showing how they spawn could still be useful. If we just show "∞ x [number]", it wouldn't show how Goombas are spawned in (the linked page doesn't specify how they are spawned in otherwise). But I do like the idea of shortening the "count" section of tables.

#ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Altendo. This formatting is much better, but I also think some note of where the infinite enemy spawner(s) originate from should be preserved.
#Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all.

Oppose

  1. Hewer (talk) I don't see the benefit of changing this. The current wording is straightforward and succinct, I'd expect the reader to understand "6 (not including the infinite Goombas spawning from one Warp Pipe)" easily. Changing it to "6 + ∞" just makes it less clear for no reason, I'd definitely be confused if I saw that and didn't know this specific context. The fact that the other support votes have also brought up how doing this risks losing the specific information completely (and suggested a more long-winded solution that seems to contradict the proposal) compels me to oppose this more.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Hewer.
  3. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
  4. Axii (talk) Per Hewer
  5. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  6. EvieMaybe (talk) we don't need to throw a mathematical equation at people
  7. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) I realized that this only makes sense if you have it explained to you like in the proposal description, which defeats the purpose.
  9. Arend (talk) I feel that "[number] (+ [number] infinite spawn points)" would be less awkward to write than what we currently do and more understandable fir most people than what is proposed here
  10. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Hewer - "succinct" would generally imply "short, sweet, and to-the-point," of which the current method is the exact opposite. I'm fine with including an asterisk-note next to the infinity, but the current one is much too bloated, outright admits to stating false information, and since the tables are center-aligned with that horizontal-bloat, it makes it look incredibly awkward. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:41, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

I guess we just have totally opposing opinions on this one, because I don't personally find ten words of explanation to be "much too bloated", would rather "state false information" (not really what's happening because it's immediately clarified and the only way not to state any "false" info would be to just put "∞" which helps no one) than obscure the meaning of what we're trying to say, and I don't at all think the somewhat wider tables look "incredibly awkward". This is a case where I feel giving more explanation than "6 + ∞" is necessary for the sake of conveying clear information, so I'd rather prioritise that over having a thin table (which I still don't really see why that's so desirable). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:19, September 18, 2024 (EDT)

If this proposal passes, I think that a dedicated template should be made; something like {{infinite respawn|5|3}} that would produce "5 + (∞ × 3)". Or at the very least, use an actual "×" symbol rather than "x". Jdtendo(T|C) 12:08, September 19, 2024 (EDT)

I dislike the idea of hiding details in easily missable hover text and don't really see the benefit of using it. It just makes it more convoluted. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:12, September 20, 2024 (EDT)

I'll refrain from voting because I have a visceral reaction to anything that resembles a math formula, and I want as little as possible for personal preference to seep into my vote. That's not to say I don't understand what's being proposed, in fact it makes perfect sense if you're aiming strictly for concision, but you'd need to take into account how accessibly that information is communicated--you'd need to establish that "infinity symbol" stands for infinite enemy spawning point, which is not immediately clear. At that point, you'd go for a relatively lengthy explanation nonetheless. Though, I agree that the phrasing in that page you linked doesn't sound inclusive. I think something like "5 individual, 3 infinite spawning points" works better if we're going down this path.
If the proposal passes, I'd like to see it implemented in the manner Jdtendo suggests above.
EDIT: I'm aware there's already plenty of math on this wiki that has potential to confound people, but in that case, not only is its succinctness a better way to explain how the game's scoring system works (as opposed to paragraphs-long descriptions), but it's taken straight out of the game as well. I'd say, use math formulas only when you're sure prose would be of less service to its intended audience: people looking up how many enemies are in a level aren't necessarily interested in complex gameplay dynamics. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:12, September 19, 2024 (EDT), edited 14:55, September 19, 2024 (EDT)

I'd personally prefer if this was notated with ω instead of ∞, something like "3ω+5", but that would probably be too confusing to anyone not already familiar with transfinite ordinal notation. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 10:01, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

This should be written "ω⋅3+5" because 3⋅ω = ω; multiplication on transfinite ordinal numbers is not commutative. Jdtendo(T|C) 12:40, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

Maybe just have a table for finite enemies and a table for infinite enemies? There's horizontal space for both. Salmancer (talk) 11:33, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

That just needlessly splits information, which I again don't see the benefit of (and I still don't really see how there's a problem here that needs fixing anyway). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:26, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings

Regarding ratings on the games we cover on this wiki, it's usually done very well and even shows off obscure rating companies hardly anyone talks about. It's educational and shows how the world rates a Super Mario game. However, when it comes to television shows and movies, they do not get the same treatment. Television shows don't even have ratings in their infobox. And while the movies do, they not only list just the MPAA, which for people who live in the United Kingdom or other countries, is not representative of the majority of the world, it's just the text, "PG". Sure, most people know it means "Parental Guidance," but imagine if we included more ratings. It's not super easy to find ratings for films and television shows in general, other than IMDB and there are no sources for proof of these ratings. When it comes to the Canadian Home Video Rating System, I can hardly find what rating was applied to that particular movie/TV show and I remember not being lucky for searching any other ratings for other movies (personal experience, but I remember searching on one of these websites and the site was rather buggy or didn't have the film/show in question).

The better solution is to add film and television ratings to the rating template so we can provide a wide variety of ratings for movies and television shows. In this case, users from around the world can view how movies are rated in almost every country. As for what ratings we add, it's a bit tricky. Because there is a lot, I would need some help here. Regardless, I got some EFIGS ratings in question. If you have more ratings, please let me know and I'll add it to the proposal These are split up into film and television.

Film
Television

My list so far is not comprehensive, but my idea is to add these ratings (and potentially others) to the template and make the infoboxes look much prettier and more visually educational. I have nothing else to say, so that's about it.

Proposer: TheUndescribableGhost (talk)
Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Rated PR for per proposal.
  2. Technetium (talk) Never noticed ratings were missing from TV and movie coverage until now. It feels obvious ratings should be included like they are with games. Per proposal.
  3. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) This is something I never noticed, but I completely agree. I'm happy that there are observant people in this world! Per proposal.
  4. Arend (talk) Per all (fun fact: the Dutch rating system for movies and television, Kijkwijzer, is being utilized by NICAM, which happens to also rate games in Europe using PEGI. In fact, PEGI's ratings appear to be based on those of Kijkwijzer)
  5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.

Oppose

Comments

Wait, couldn't this just be a talk page proposal on the template itself? It would affect many pages, yes, but this is specifically about editing a template… I'm honestly not so sure. Technetium (talk) 15:52, September 24, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4375333"